Line of sight test shows “blind curve” likely not a factor.

The speed limit on Jefferson just west of the crash is 40mph (it is 35mph 50 feet east of the crash scene). According to a stopping distance calculator, at 40mph, stopping distance is 76 feet.

The video above was shot last night at 10:30pm. In the video:

  • my top speed driving was 40mph.
  • 3 people were holding 4 standard blinky lights for this experiment
  • the street light above the crash location was still out

Distances are verified using this map of the crash scene using telephone poles as markers on the road.

Visibility test
Visibility test

The camera was placed in the passenger’s seat which means that the line of sight of the camera is actually not as good as a person sitting in the driver’s seat would have.

You can also see that the blinky lights are spread out from the parking / right turn lane inside the solid line and the number 2 lane (right lane). Had people been in the number one lane the line of sight would have been even clearer.

Wayne "Ridetime" clarifies that the suspect was not driving in a through lane

ongoing investigation and video on the Midnightridazz thread:

Roadblock founding member, Midnight Ridazz

Roadblock is a League Certified Traffic Skills instructor, cycling advocate and founding member of Midnight Ridazz.

21 thoughts on “Line of sight test shows “blind curve” likely not a factor.

  1. Thanks for showing how crazy it is that people are blaming bike riders for being in the street when it is clearly the fault of a drunk driver that was using a cell phone at the time. If the driver had hit another car no one would blame the other driver.

  2. Judging by the video not only were the cyclists visible, but, Christine Dahob had to go out of her way to hit them, her lane ended into a right hand turn lane at about 1000 feet, then became a parking lane after that.

    It was road rage, and her blood alcohol was not high enough for her to be buzzed or drunk. Legally one can not drink any alcohol prior to driving, just becasue you have a DUI it does not mean you were drunk or buzzed or otherwise impaired.

    Impairment rises on a scale in concordance with ones BA level.

  3. The markings are confusing. At 300 ft, there is a clearly marked right turn arrow painted on the ground and the right turn lane is marked by a solid line (which to me means drivers should neither enter nor leave the right turn lane). However, at the end of the solid marking, there is a partial circle on the ground which means nothing to me. To you, it means a driver shouldn’t be in that lane, but what is a driver to do who entered the right turn lane back at the 300 ft mark?

    Is there a separate driveway for the first right turn lane, so the solid line would indicate that you must turn here? In this interpretation, there is a new second right turn lane with the dotted line starting immediately after the first right turn lane ends. If so, that doesn’t mean a driver should not be in either of the right turn lanes, but does mean that a driver or cyclist in the first right turn lane should turn right at the first corner and not drive straight through.

  4. The question that seems obvious… did the riders all have the lights as required by state law and common sense? The lights used in the test… are they the same that were on the bikes?

  5. “did the riders all have the lights as required by state law”

    State law does not require lights, it only requires red reflectors visible from about 600 feet.

    Also, if a bike or car is parked in the parking lane, lights can be turned off. That’s why cars have rear reflectors.

    Personally, I always use a red taillight on my bike for safety, but that’s not legally required.

  6. bkl, that “partial circle” is a line which indicates the turning radius of the car.

    The video also clearly shows the “pedestrian crossing ahead” yellow sign and “right lane must turn right”

  7. 1) As far as I am aware, you’re supposed to slow down for conditions of the road anyway. So even if there WAS a blind curve, the drier is supposed to slow down to compensate in krder to give him/herself enough breaking time for newly visible hazards. For drivers to be allowed to drive the speed limit regardless of conditions would be pure stupidity.

    2) Since the driver hit ELEVEN people, it’s safe to say she wasn’t hitting the brakes until well after a few people were hit. Eleven people being hit is not indicitave of a driver reacting as soon as they could.

  8. This is a nice analysis. Granted, it’s not perfect but it makes a strong argument that in good driving conditions an unimpaired driver would have seen the riders in plenty of time to avoid hitting them. What impresses me is you and your friends putting in work to do this! This is a tribute to your injured friends, good for you!

  9. I drive and ride that section all the time. “blind” should never have been an adjective in the report unless referring to Dahab. My impression from speaking with CCPD is visibility was not an issue.

  10. Bicycles were recognized, by law,as vehicles about 20 yrs. ago so why is it taking so long for some of us to acknowledge them? Perhaps the std. DMV test should include bicycling awareness, riding skills, lane-positioning.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *